A 670-g 23-week-gestation female infant was born to a gravida 3 para 2 woman at home. The pregnancy was complicated at 10 weeks when an intrauterine device (IUD) was placed. The obstetrician retained by the plaintiff was critical of the IUD placement because the treating obstetrician had not ruled out pregnancy at the time of insertion. The defense obstetrician said pregnancy was ruled out by a negative result on the human chorionic gonadotrophin test. The plaintiff obstetrician pointed out that this test is not sufficiently sensitive early in pregnancy; it cannot detect low levels of β–human chorionic gonadotrophin before a woman has missed her period. He further maintained that the standard of care required the IUD to be placed during menstruation, as the manufacturer's package instructed. The plaintiff obstetrician further pointed out that when pregnancy was determined, the mother should have been classified as high risk because...
Legal Briefs: Extreme Preterm Birth Complicated by an Intrauterine Device and Profound Hypothermia
Dr Sims has disclosed that she has been compensated for reviewing records and providing testimony in some of the cases highlighted in Legal Briefs. This commentary does not contain a discussion of an unapproved/investigative use of a commercial product/device.
- Views Icon Views
- Share Icon Share
- Search Site
Maureen E. Sims; Legal Briefs: Extreme Preterm Birth Complicated by an Intrauterine Device and Profound Hypothermia. Neoreviews March 2017; 18 (3): e187–e189. https://doi.org/10.1542/neo.18-3-e187
Download citation file: